Practice based research was supported by a series of manuals or core texts that defended the idea that both ‘sides’ could be taught together. They argued against the unity of criticism that spoke against such theories like Frayling’s distinctions: “The problem of art and design”
Critic was particularly applied to the multiple response to the (for) art research, as the ominous They disliked the obvious distinction from ‘natural’ research, which was objective as fact. Micheal Biggs, in his work “The rhetoric of research” in 2002, suggest that “Frayling constructs a framework”, of categories into existence; although that are made up of stereotypes entirely. The conflict between the two mysterious groups of artists and non-artists was that the research for art was what artists believe art to be; to speak for itself, to have a different meaning to everyone, to be independent of common language. Which wasn’t academic enough.
Action Research was the second least favourite in the eyes of the public; it is easily described as “a form of research that emphasis participation in change situations, i.e. ‘doing something’ that facilitates change, like social interruption. Although Frayling himself defined it as “A research diary tells in a step by step way, of a practical experiment in the studios, and the resulting report aims to contextualize the results, which is what separates research.” Although surely the creator of the term gets to define its meaning world-wide, or is that another artistic multiple interpretation.
The problem with Frayling’s research, with his work being namely on his interest in film studies, is that non of his own research fit into the categories he has defined. (It also explains where his stereotypical archetypes come from.)